Anitha Yadav Vs State of Karnataka by Amruthahally P S

ANITHA YADAV W/O SUMITH MOHAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.714, 2^ND FLOOR JAGADAMBA ENGINEERING WORKS, KAVERI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560092.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AMRUTHAHALLY P S REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

SUMIT MOHAN @ SUMITH @ MOHAN S/O HARSH MOHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.714, 2^ND FLOOR, KAVERI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU, NOW UNDERGOING SENTENCE AT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100 PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SINGANIVALA, SHARPUR POST,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:33568-DB CRL.A No. 754 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CHAKMANJA MANDAL, DEHARADUN, UTTRANCHAL-248003.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR MAJAGE, SPP II FOR RESPONDENT-1)

¶23

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC (FILED U/S 415(2) BNSS) PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE FILE OF L ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHILDRENS COURT (SPL.) BENGALURU CCH-51 DATED 01.04.2025 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE IMPRISONMENT FOR DEATH FOR THE CHARGE UNDER SEC.103(1) OF BNS.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶28

The defacto-complainant has preferred this appeal

¶29

under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 372 of Cr.PC) praying to modify the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Court of L Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Children's Court (Special), Bengaluru (CCH-51) in Spl.CC No.69/2025, wherein the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 01.04.2025 and order on sentence dated 05.04.2025, has convicted respondent

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:33568-DB CRL.A No. 754 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of

¶34

BNS, 2023 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life

¶35

and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of three months.

¶36

The appellant is seeking modification of the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and prays for enhancement of sentence to death penalty.

¶37

Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 372 of Cr.PC), reads as under:

¶38

"413. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force:

¶39

Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."

¶40

The above provision enables the victim to prefer

¶41

an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The proviso of Section

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:33568-DB CRL.A No. 754 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

372 Cr.PC does not enable the victim to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRINIVAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Appeal No.228/2018 c/w Criminal Appeal No.211/2018 disposed on 07.03.2024, to contend that a victim is also entitled to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

¶47

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PARVINDER KANSAL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4044 has held that, "reading of the proviso (372 Cr.PC) makes it clear that so

¶48

far as victim's right of appeal is concerned, same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused, conviction of the accused for lesser offence, or for imposing inadequate compensation. While the victim is

¶49

given opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, but at the same time there is

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:33568-DB CRL.A No. 754 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the

¶54

order of sentence as inadequate".

¶55

Even though the above judgment finds a reference in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant, there is no discussion in the findings recorded regarding the same. In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PARVINDER KANSAL (supra), the instant appeal preferred by the defacto complainant/victim, seeking enhancement of sentence is not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶56

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶59

KBM., List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Anitha Yadav v. State of Karnataka by Amruthahally P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Yadav v. State of Karnataka by Amruthahally P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivakumar B R Vs State of Karnataka

Sooraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashoka Vs State by Saraswathipuram

Mohammad Arif Vs National Investigation Agency

T. Naveena Vs State by Kirugavalu Police

State of Karnataka Vs Ashrith @ Ashu